Why Socialism and Wealth Redistribution Don’t Work and Cause MORE Poverty, Inequality, and Injustice
ByThose rich people don’t need all that money. They don’t pay their fair share of taxes. And a lot of good can be done if all that money is taken away from those people, who don’t need it anyway, and is given to other less fortunate people so that they can have better opportunities to advance their lives.
The above paragraph seems to be the essence of liberal economic thought. I realize that many liberals these days object to the notion that what they really want is socialism. However, arguing nomenclature is of no substance. Therefore, I’m just going to say that the philosophy described above falls under the umbrella of socialism, and just call it that.
We can argue fairness all day long, but for now I want to tell you what happens when socialism or whatever you wish to call it, is deployed in an attempt to correct the perceived economic (or “social”) injustices of the world.
Many people who support socialism, do so because they want a fair, poverty free world, with justice for all. Therefore, if you support socialism, i.e. wealth redistribution and a large government that deploys a heavy set of social programs to achieve all that, I would just like to let you know of the following:
The socialist methods deployed to supposedly achieve a better world unleash an AVALANCHE of negative side effects that utterly dwarfs any of their original intentions, and brings more poverty, more inequality, more injustice, less prosperity, and more misery. This is because those methods go against an essence of human nature that cannot be changed even by people with the best of intentions.
Yes, socialism exacerbates the very problems it claims to solve.
Disagree? Then read on!
Unintended Consequences of Socialist Policies
There are several reasons why socialism, and specifically wealth redistribution by means of taxing the rich, does not work. All of these reasons stem from one important fact of life:
People have a strong desire to do whatever is in their own perceived self interest!
The following are detrimental unintended consequences of socialism that stem from the above fact and undermine everything socialism is meant to accomplish:
- Much of the money that goes to the government ends up being wasted, resulting in ineffective government programs, and less wealth for EVERYBODY. Learn more.
- Many are tempted to assume that money collected by the government goes to help the poor and downtrodden. However, much of that money ends up in the hands of the rich and politically connected, those who have the most resources and ability to lobby for it. Learn more
- Socialism concentrates money and power in the hands of the government. When government grows, the greedy and corrupt don’t go away. Conversely, they now have a more powerful tool in their hands, the government itself. Learn more
- The richer you are, the easier it is for you to avoid increasing taxation and leave the bill to the middle class. Learn more.
- A soak-the-rich, high tax strategy inhibits the economy. And who is hurt the most by a slow economy? Not the rich! Learn more
- The transfer of earned wealth that socialist policies mandate are a detriment to entrepreneurship and innovation. Entrepreneurship and innovation are driven by the potential for material rewards. If we take away or reduce the material rewards, we’ll have less innovation. Less innovation means less of all the cool, useful, and life-saving stuff we all love. Learn more
- High taxes and government regulations make it more difficult to start and grow a business, thereby leaving much greater opportunities for those who are already rich and have the resources to overcome those difficulties. Learn more
- Social programs create more demand and need for those very programs in a self perpetuating cycle because given government handouts, people come to expect and rely on them. And therefore, you can never spend enough, because the more you do, the greater the need to do so becomes. Learn more
- Social programs are a disincentive to work and act responsibly. After all, if some or all of your needs are taken care of, and if someone else picks up the tab whenever something goes wrong, why would you worry about such minor details as work ethic, productivity, financial responsibility and family obligations? Consequently, when productivity takes a downturn, leading to a shrinking economy, guess who suffers… everybody! Oh and as always, the rich suffer the least. Learn more
- A combination of the above points causes a vicious cycle of decreasing revenues and increasing demand for social spending that results in a socialist government running out of money and having ‘no choice’ but to perpetuated tax increases to every level of society, rich and poor. Learn more
Because of the avalanche of problems socialist policies cause, no amount of social spending and taxation will ever overcome the problems it is supposedly set out to solve.
The Road to Poverty, Inequality, and Injustice
- Socialism causes poverty because it slows economic growth and progress through government waste, taxation on productive economic activity, discouraging innovation and the creation of hurdles for business. In addition, socialism causes poverty because it creates a disincentive to work and act responsibly.
- Socialism causes inequality because much of the money that goes to the government ends up in the hands of the rich and politically connected, it’s easier for wealthy individuals to avoid taxes, and it creates hurdles for business that the wealthy find easier to overcome. Socialism is a way for the rich to shut the door behind them, preventing those who are on their way up from reaching their destination.
- Liberalism tends to liken inequality to injustice, therefore, just by using the standards set by liberal thinking, socialism causes injustice because of the inequality it promotes. But more directly, socialist policies (wealth redistribution, social programs, and regulation) necessitate a larger, more powerful, more meddling, government that becomes a powerful tool for the wealthy, politically connected, and bureaucrats on “power trips” to take advantage of the rest of society.
The Price of Socialism
Because of the avalanche of unintended consequences, socialist policies are at best extremely limited in what good they can do. Yet, many politicians represent those as some grand solution to humanity’s problems and completely neglect all the problems socialist policies cause. This is akin to touting a “miracle” cure for cancer, yet failing to mention it causes blindness, brain damage, and eventual cardiac arrest. Socialism’s avalanche of unintended consequences cuts deep into any benefits that society might derive from social programs. And anyone, especially voters and politicians, should be aware and honest about the real price that socialism demands.
First, there is little chance that, on average, a middle class person would come out ahead with government entitlements he/she receives after subtracting all the extra taxes and economic costs he/she bares for those entitlements. This is because, the government can not raise enough revenue just from those considered rich to cover the cycle of decreasing revenues and increasing demand for social spending brought on by socialist policies. We only need to look at the high level of taxation on the middle class of European social democratic states to see this is indeed the case.
If you are not a person who is poverty stricken, and you’re not going to run a welfare scam, then do not believe for a second that the government will take from the rich on your behalf. You will pay through income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, inflation etc.
And then there are the poor. They earn too little for the government to take anything of significance, and can come out ahead in dollar amount given aid from the government. It’s great for them if they’re perfectly happy being perpetually impoverished, living the austere life at a near subsistence level given to them by the government.
But overall, the poor will also pay a price! And so will everybody else… but as always, not so much those who are very rich. This price is lesser economic opportunity. Yes, the very thing that the socialists supposedly champion for the poor. More specifically, we have greater unemployment and less business opportunity. Western Europe for instance, with all its socialist policies and supposed compassion, has boom-time unemployment rates that are roughly what the United States gets during recessions.
And to top it all off, there’s the price of slowed innovation, entrepreneurship and technological advancement.
Conclusion
The government can either completely help a small number of people, or slightly help a large number of people. What it absolutely can not do is completely help a large number of people. It’s just impossible to expect a small minority, i.e. the rich, to support the rest of the population. It cannot happen! The government can’t solve everybody’s problems. It has never happened, and never will happen.
But mustn’t we help people in need? Yes, we should help some who can’t take care of themselves. However, the more money we spend on this via the government, the more significant the unintended consequences become, devastating not just those whom we want to help, but many others. And therefore, wealth redistribution and social programs are not the answer to some great society and a better world order and should be kept to a minimum. But unfortunately, when faced with poverty and social problems, the socialist response is even more socialism, the very thing that makes those problems worse.
If you are reading this and you are a rich Hollywood type who supports Barack Obama, the socialist in chief, or perhaps you think that Obama is not socialist enough, then in the name of fairness, I accept donations of a million dollars, or any other amount, so that I won’t have to be personally affected by the damages of socialist policies. You don’t need nor deserve all that money anyway. Seriously, I know you weren’t going to give it all to a charity. So in the name of fairness, contact me here to make arrangements. And since the donation is 100% voluntary and doesn’t involve the government, it won’t suffer from all those pesky unintended consequences.
Otherwise, if you are not a rich Hollywood type, then good luck with all of the above.
34 Comments
October 9th, 2009 at 1:06 am
bravo, you are the sole voice of reason right now.
All you have to do to show that socialism doesn’t work is open a history text book to the USSR chapter and actually read it. But for some reason people just seem to have forgotten about the mistakes our friends Ivan and Gerry made and just assume socialism is the one size fits all cure to their problems. HA!
I make 1984 references to my peers all the time, and they never seem to understand what I’m saying and just brush me off as some hack who doesnt understand “how the world works” when theyre just bandwagon liberals who just listen to whatever that idiot from Greenday saids.
This was probably written awhile ago, but I’m so ecstatic to have found this. I’m an art student at a very liberal state school and I get this Liberal stuff shoved done my throat all the time. Thank God there’s some reason left.
End Rant. Good job btw.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
This is an excellent article. I just recently found your site researching points to give to my liberal Aunt. EXCELLENT post! Keep up the good work!
October 28th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
This website is what happens when you let privileged children who have never connected with the world of work have a website.
I’m not going to even bother with you except to say this: the biggest wealth redistribution system in place right now is in the corporate boardrooms where a few highly-stuffed pigs decide when and where and who gets to work for them and if they don’t like it, we’ll just ship the jobs to countries that are even MORE repressed than America.
The American workplace is totalitarian, the economic system of capitalism is corrupt and obsolete, and also dying. That’s why America is turning into a 3rd world country, it’s because of what capitalism unchecked does to a government and its people.
Live with it, learn it, because it’s happening right now, today, and your puny little attempt to make a few buck before it folds is laughable.
-Wexler
November 29th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Your attempt at logic and reason is laughable! So which one is it? Am I a privileged child, or am I attempting to make a few puny bucks here?
January 2nd, 2010 at 8:13 pm
“The American workplace is totalitarian, the economic system of capitalism is corrupt and obsolete, and also dying. That’s why America is turning into a 3rd world country, it’s because of what capitalism unchecked does to a government and its people.”
You’re right William, it has been corrupted. Without the right laws or morals, greed will take over. What is needed is not the government robbing one person to “help” another person, but what is needed is a return to following God’s laws. Only with the right rules and reasons for living is there any hope for a stable economic system.
January 2nd, 2010 at 8:48 pm
1. Yes, Karl Marx said something similar, yet it’s his philosophy that became obsolete.
2. Unchecked capitalism? What here in the U.S.? You surely have got to be kidding! We’ve got Social security, food stamps, government paying for a total of %50 of health care expenditures, FDIC, SEC, anti-trust laws, OSHA, FDA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, minimum wage, unemployment benefits, family leave act… should I go on?
January 15th, 2010 at 11:25 am
Wexler,
You sir, are apparently a feckless and bitter ass. There is nothing more obsolete, corrupt, or ineffectual than the socialist model. To hell with the so called “Vanguard”. Up with liberty. At least the people have constraints. Guess you believe in global warming, and the conferring of rights to enemy combatants/terrorists, too.
February 12th, 2010 at 4:07 pm
“But mustn’t we help people in need? Yes, we should have a basic social safety net for those who can’t take care of themselves.”
Sorry, but I have to disagree with this. You can’t draw lines because people will ALWAYS take advantage of this. Read up on Austrian Economics at http://www.mises.org if you are interested in why ANY form of social security, no matter how ‘necessary’ anyone deems it to be, is bad.
February 12th, 2010 at 4:40 pm
I agree that people will ALWAYS take advantage of this, however any type of government spending will ALWAYS be taken advantage of, yet do we argue about abolishing any and all government, including military spending? There IS a line to be drawn, otherwise we must not have any government at all.
February 17th, 2010 at 11:31 am
What makes any public services any more necessary than others? The line is always going to be arbitrary and up for debate because you won’t find a single person who agrees exactly what public services should be provided and how they should be provided. It’s definitely something to think about, consider exactly what a government does that is so necessary and could not be done privately.
February 19th, 2010 at 7:37 pm
I agree that the exact line is up for debate. However, there is a line, and it’s not set at zero government. That much we know. Few people would argue, for example, that there is no need for executive and legislative branches of government, courts, law enforcement and military. All of these are prone to abuse and corruption. Yet we have them, and in all likelihood, their absence, despite whatever abuse exists, would do much more harm than good.
The construction of public roads is an example of a government program whose necessity is perhaps a bit more debatable, however arguments are strong that the private sector would not fair very well. Free market competition is impossible as any road can only have one owner, plus the logistics of collecting payment would be a nightmare.
Similarly, I would not completely rule out some social spending. Yes, government will always attempt stupid things, such as perhaps paying for free needles for drug addicts… (Oh, have some compassion.) But maybe subsidized schooling for low income blind people is acceptable, for example.
And therefore I think the key to all of this is to limit taxation and government spending. For as long as those are low, society could benefit form government, and the negative side-effects of socialism (and just plain government spending as well), as detailed in the article above, would be small.
This way of course, government won’t be able to help everybody nearly as much as socialists want, but it can’t do it under full blow socialism nor any stage in between anyway, which is the whole point of this site.
March 22nd, 2010 at 1:15 pm
Thanks very much for publishing this article (and for all of the subsequent comments). I find myself continually frustrated by uninformed ranting on both sides of this debate, so it’s always refreshing to see opinion backed by articulate, sound argument.
I am always on the fence about what I think the role of government should be in this country. While I wholeheartedly believe that our healthcare system is in dire need of reform, I can’t help but feel a bit uneasy that the passage of the Bill is an overstepping of boundaries. Private insurance companies certainly need to be checked, and I think that it has to be the government’s role to make sure that they aren’t profiting at the American people’s expense. However, I don’t believe that government should be interfering to the point that they begin to take over as providers of an essential service. That being said, I can’t stand those who cry “Armageddon” over its passage. Whether it ends up hurting or helping us is yet to be seen, but it serves no constructive purpose to make unfounded claims that it will ruin America. Instead, skeptics should use their energy to educate and be educated, looking to the author of this article as inspiration. Don’t spread fear and misinformation, spread knowledge and figure out how to make our country stronger.
My point of posting was less about voicing an opinion about how our government should operate, and more about expressing my genuine belief in the American system. Constant debate and checks and balances are the reason we have been so successful, and without them we would surely crumble. In recent years, we have seen some of the worst side-effects of capitalism, and a backlash was inevitable. Many corporate entities have blatantly overstepped boundaries without any observable sense of the common good. Obama and the Democrats are now pushing vehemently in the opposite direction, and in their attempt to re-level the balance, they will likely go too far. The beauty is that their opponents will only gain support and power if their policies don’t work. In this way, we’ll go back and forth correcting one another’s mistakes forever.
April 24th, 2010 at 2:00 am
a lot of socialist final goal to it get rid of a the government so it would just be the people that ran the country. and if you had real socialist in the government then it hopefully wouldn’t become corrupt, even though there will always be corrupt people when there are greedy people. but if you have righteous people then i dont see how u could say socialism doesn’t work, go read the communist manifesto and tell me there aren’t good ideas in there to benefit the working class, and to that guy talking about Russia needs to look beyond a history book and see that Russia was not really a socialist country and read about cuba and how socialism is working there. people need to look beyond there history book and read about the real history of stuff because we all know what history book are full of lies, people also need to look beyond the t.v. and do independent research to see what they believe not just what the government tells them to believe,
April 24th, 2010 at 10:03 am
Who are “the people” and how would they run things. Somebody has to be in charge at some point and we call that government. Are you saying that a socialist’s final goal is anarchy?
It’s because there are no righteous people that can run everything indefinitely. And corruption is just one problem socialism faces. There is no “real” socialism and “fake” socialism. It’s all the same. The first is the unrealistic theory, the second is what comes out when it’s implemented.
I have, there aren’t.
Yes it was. The theory of what socialism should be like is in your head, the practice is what happened in the Soviet Union.
It’s working miserably.
And serious independent unbiased study would lead to the fact that socialism is a miserable thing.
April 27th, 2010 at 1:40 am
It’s because there are no righteous people that can run everything indefinitely. And corruption is just one problem socialism faces. There is no “real” socialism and “fake” socialism. It’s all the same. The first is the unrealistic theory, the second is what comes out when it’s implemented.
i meant by that people who wouldn’t become corrupt, i know there aren’t that many out there and i will be the first to admit that there are socialist out there that would be just as corrupt as anyone else. are you trying to tell me that there are no corrupt people in capitalism.
about Cuba i need to change what i said because Cuba never claimed to be socialist there were Marxist and when they over threw the county they need help running it so they worked with the communist but they never claimed to be socialist they were just labeled that. Cuba inst as bad as most people think they have free school they aren’t a lot of homeless people. food is really cheap and they have free health care i could list more but people should do research and not list to the propaganda against Cuba and other county’s are government feeds us
And serious independent unbiased study would lead to the fact that socialism is a miserable thing.
i didn’t mean reading peoples independent study because i believe there isn’t such a think as a unbiased study because to be unbiased they wouldn’t have an opinion on it and to not have an opinion they probably wouldn’t care and if they really didn’t care they wouldn’t do a study on it. i meant people need to read from alternate news sources and not believe everything the new and government tells them, people need to research both sides and they decided what they believe.
April 28th, 2010 at 12:02 pm
There are corrupt people everywhere. Socialism brings out more potential for corruption because:
1. It concentrates government power and puts it in the hands of the few.
2. It leaves people in charge or other people’s money and lives.
Marxism and communism are types of socialism.
Cuba is a very poor country. Their free health care is of very low quality. To get decent care one has to either bribe or know someone. The Cubans are very lucky that food is really cheap there because they can barely afford it as it is with the meager wages they earn. Castro and his family are living a good life though.
May 2nd, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Somebody hit my website from here today.
Speaking of capitalism, how’s that “drill baby drill” thingie workin’ out for ya?
Idiots.
You talk about the evils of government and then when something happens that should have been more closely regulated by government, you either blame government for not doing enough or you cry out for help, or BOTH.
I forgot that I had posted here, so it was fun to read the article above (total bullshit) which ends with a shoutout for money. How’s that working for ya? If capitalism works the way it should, why would anybody PAY you for what they can get for free? Either here or in any barnyard.
Funny stuff.
-Wexler
PS Western European nations and Canada have been living in various degrees of socialism for decades. If you ask them what they think of it, they’ll tell you they like it and wonder why the US is so out of touch with its own people.
May 3rd, 2010 at 1:56 am
It’s working out just fine. If you don’t drill here, you buy it from someone who’s drilling elsewhere. I suppose you’d rather pay the Saudis for their oil. And then you have to transport the oil with those big spill-prone tankers.
The oil industry is already heavily regulated. How’s that workin’ out for ya?
Your website is where all the B.S. appears.
What in the world are you talking about?
So what? Smokers like to smoke, but it doesn’t mean it’s a good habit. The Greek loved their socialism too, but for some reason… I can’t quite figure out why… they’re cutting back. Oh I know why… they ran out of money… oops! Better luck next time. And besides, if you ask people in the U.S. if they’d like to pay as high taxes as Europeans do and live their life styles, they say no and wonder why the Europeans are driving themselves into the ground.
May 3rd, 2010 at 5:36 pm
“What in the world are you talking about?”
I’m talking about your request for money, naturally. Why should anyone pay you for what they can get free?
You and I may disagree on the role of government but I think there’s no way even a poorly maintained website like mine is inferior to this POS. I’m doing documentation work, you’re spewing opinion, which has already been proven wrong. The righties had the last 30 years to run the economy to the brink of disaster, which is exactly what y’all did.
Your position is based 100% on greed and is anti-social. You don’t belong in a country, you belong out in the mountains living by yourself. Frankly Libs are crackpots but I do enjoy Ron Paul more than Dick Armey. That’s not saying much.
Good day.
May 3rd, 2010 at 8:53 pm
A. It’s a joke. B. It’s not a request in exchange for anything they’re getting.
Riiiiiiiiiight, your potty mouth and a site that does nothing but personally attack people is waaaay better than anything here.
Really? Proven wrong? How exactly? Calling Bush Hitler doesn’t count.
Riiiiiiiiiight, just the “righties” ran things for the past 30 year, including the 18 years of Democrat majorities in Congress, the Clinton administrations, and Democrat run mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And also to “fix” things we’ve got 2 years of Obama with LASER like focus on jobs… LASER!
Right back at you. And you can take your bad-mouthing and personal attacks elsewhere.
May 8th, 2010 at 5:40 pm
It has nothing to do with being able to “take the heat”. (What are we in high school?) It’s just a waste of time.
May 8th, 2010 at 6:03 pm
look.. sad fact of the matter is that things don’t work.. i’m so far to the right, I begin to look like I come from the left, but honestly, who cares.. I work for the man.. and the bastard is corrupt, I don’t know what else to tell you.. but it is still so.. as far as obama or anything else government related, who cares? one group of criminals or another, it does not matter to me.. eventually american business will be regulated out of existence and subjected to enough BS to cause mass chaos.. then the thing that should have begun ages ago will get started..
Just like war, social discontent serves one main purpose.. to remove human lives to equate resources.. as long as the resources exist to keep people alive *poverty be damned*, little will be done.. if a massive plague or war breaks out, I can’t imagine that current governmental ideology is going to shift, just saying.. but keep people healthy and keep those babies coming on this planet, and then we might get enough ‘population pressure’ to cause catastrophic failure.. better get some beater equipment and something to power it with sooner rather than later, just in case the babies keep coming.. LMAO
D
May 8th, 2010 at 6:12 pm
PS, wanted to add.. if anyone wants a REAL answer… just to let you know, if you are looking for answers, and expecting The Man to supply them for you.. good luck w/ that.. LMAO
May 9th, 2010 at 1:33 am
“The man” of business and “the man” of government are both corrupt, but they’re not both the same to the extent that the nature of the balance between them doesn’t matter.
July 11th, 2010 at 12:40 am
The whole premise that socialism is a “wealth distribution scheme” is based on a straw man argument.
For those of you who don’t already understand what that is, just substitute “lie”. The lie is that anyone has suggested that wealth should be redistributed in the US. For example, nobody has suggested that everyone should be paid the same amount of money for work. Nobody has said that wealth shouldn’t be accumulated. Nobody has said that the government should own all private enterprise.
Nope. Those are the lies of crackpot jugheads who are trying to distract you from what the real issues are by making it into something it’s not about. What is it REALLY about, then?
There are certain tasks that are best fit for government rather than private enterprise. For example, the government does a pretty good job at police and fire departments, public libraries and schools, the military (well, OK, maybe not so much the military). But even the epic FAIL of the military has been policy, not the readiness of our troops, their weapons systems, etc.
Because of the dramatic changes in the world political, economic, technological, and communications, there have been more tasks that have cropped up that the Founders never dreamed of. For example, who would have thought back in the mid 1700s that we might have 10,000 aircraft in the air during any given week. Or who would have thought back then that we could drill holes in the bottom of the sea that could destroy the ecosystem of the Gulf with one accident? Who would have thought that hundreds of new consumer products would be introduced every day, with varying degrees of engineering expertise behind them and some with lethal errors? OR the MRI, or the link between tobacco and cancer, or nuclear waste dumps, and so on and so on.
As you can see, the simplistic babbling of “Um, it’s not in the CONSTITUTION, MAN” is just a moron’s copout. So is the straw man argument of putting a “socialist” or “liberal” label on it and hope that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh can make it go away. No, the fact is that those problems need real solutions instead of dishonest and foolhardy divisive non-arguments that are just designed to protect the interests of the HAVES over the HAVE NOTS.
Oh, now I’m talking about CLASS WARFARE???? Yeah, I am. The upper class has been waging war on the lower class and they are winning. They are driving the mean wage down. They have shipped our jobs overseas. Follow the money, it’s moving UP THE FOOD CHAIN, not any other way.
So I’ve gotten off track a bit, I even get fooled into the false dichotomy now and then. What we really need is for people who have good heads on their shoulders to sit down with real proposals for solutions. We don’t need mindless yammering about whether it’s “socialist” or not. Good grief, to hear Beck and Limbaugh talk about it, EVERYTHING is “socialist”.
Their chicken little act is growing old, and they have goaded the right into some strategic blunders that are going to change the course of history this November. The blockage of real Wall Street re-regulation and extension of unemployment benefits are the death knell for the GOP. Glenn Beck can kiss his kiester aloha over trying to hold a white supremacist rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of Dr. King’s “I have a dream” speech. The backlash will be furious.
My advice is biblical, even though I’m an atheist. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. America is getting very angry, and it’s not at the “socialists”. It’s at the people at the top of the food chain that are pulling everybody’s chain.
-Wexler
July 11th, 2010 at 1:26 am
Getting a little bored there on your website Wexler?
Socialism and wealth distribution? *SARCASM* I don’t know what you’re talking about. They’re of no relation. *SARCASM*
Really? Nobody suggested that?
Barack Obama: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
And how about Obama appointee Donald Berwick: “any healthcare funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane, must, must, redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and less fortunate.”
That’s the straw man argument, a “lie” for those who don’t understand. Nobody suggested that socialism is only a problem when it’s at a 100%.
July 11th, 2010 at 9:22 am
There you go again.
You just can’t be happy unless you’re taking a 15 second sound bite to “prove” your argument rather than actually proving it. This paucity of intellectual honesty shows that you don’t actually care about the issue at hand, you just think that you can “prove” it with a sound bite.
Since you basically ignored my entire post, and instead attempted to steal the argument with two sound bites, I’m going to declare victory. That is, unless you want to get off your sorry tucus and give it a real shot like someone with a cranium full of firing synapses. You’re not worthy of the nonsense you posted. How about some sense?
For example, instead of dwelling on socialism as a “wealth distribution scheme”, which it is NOT, why don’t you address any of the points I’ve made about what socialism really is and how we do or do not need it to solve problems of the 21st century? Yes, I know that would be too much like a discussion but maybe you could try it, just once? Rather than pulling a cheap trick?
What do you think? You have my rapt attention.
-Wexler
July 11th, 2010 at 10:58 am
Really? So somehow you saying that “the lie is that anyone has suggested that wealth should be redistributed in the US,” and me showing video clips of Obama and his appointee saying just that is not proof and illegitimate.
And if that wasn’t part of the issue at hand, why did you present it saying that “the whole premise that socialism is a ‘wealth distribution scheme’ is based on a straw man argument.” Nah, it’s a minor unimportant part. It’s only that the whole premise of the other side’s argument rests upon it.
July 11th, 2010 at 11:11 am
The implication that resistance to socialism means resistance to all government services and intervention is yet another straw man argument. I’ve seen it a million times. See here and here.
Why have a constitution then?
Why did the lefties use the “um, it’s not in the CONSTITUTION MAN” argument with respect to the patriot act? I suppose when you personally like what the government is doing, then it’s a moron’s cop-out, but when you don’t then it’s unconstitutional.
At least the patriot act was passed into law by Congress, unlike the oil drilling moratorium, which can be struck down as unconstitutional just by that fact alone.
The Constitution has two mechanism to deal with “the dramatic changes in the world”:
1. New amendments. Yes they are difficult to pass, but they’d be more urgently need and passed more readily if the government didn’t just ignore the Constitution anyway.
2. The 10th Amendment. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
July 11th, 2010 at 11:53 am
Heheh,
Show me the clip where Obama and his economic advisers made a statement of public policy where we are all going to now have some kind of wealth distribution scheme. You’re being ridiculous. Unless you are totally devoid of intellectual honesty, a point which I am beginning to ponder, you can’t seriously believe that an off-the-cuff comment made to “Joe the Plumber” during a campaign rally can be considered to be public policy. OR do you? If so, please get HELP.
I’m not accusing you of resisting all government services and institutions, I’m TELLING you what socialism is not. You’re attempting to re-define it into your narrow point of view that it is income re-distribution, which it is definitely not. Can we talk honestly, please?
I’m glad you mentioned the USA PATRIOT Act, which has and always will be a serious erosion of American’s liberties. Your side (I don’t know about you personally) seem to think it’s OK, all the while out there waving pocket Constitutions and pictures of Obama as Hitler.
Do you actually understand the purpose of the Constitution or are you being obtuse? The Constitution has been amended 27 times including the Bill of Rights that Bush pretty much trashed at will. But that’s not the point here. We’re talking about what’s socialism and what’s not, and what’s in the Constitution.
Maybe you should read the Preamble. Read what the purpose of government is. Promote the general welfare. Sound familiar? That’s the part of the Constitution you want to ignore. That part and the part that states that darkies are only 3/5 of a human being. What you try to do is make the case that unless it’s stated in the Constitution, it can’t be done.
Tenthers… please read. http://catbus.tumblr.com/post/177220857/radical-right-the-rights-tenther-constitution
DISTORTING THE DOCUMENT: Tenthers derive their narrow vision of the Constitution from a strained reading of the Tenth Amendment, which provides that the Constitution contains an itemized list of federal powers and anything not contained in that list is beyond Congress’ authority. In the tenthers’ eyes, Congress’ powers must all be read too narrowly to allow most federal statutes to exist. However, the tenther constitution bears little resemblance to the words of the document itself. Contrary to tenther claims that federal spending programs like Medicare or Social Security are unconstitutional, Article I of the Constitution empowers Congress to “lay and collect taxes” and to “provide for…the general welfare of the United States,” which unambiguously authorizes it to spend money in ways that benefit the nation. Similarly, Congress’ broad authority to enact regulatory schemes that “substantially affect interstate commerce” easily encompasses laws like the federal minimum wage and the requirement that businesses do not discriminate on the basis of race. As Roosevelt chided tenther-like conservatives from his era, “The Constitution of 1787 did not make our democracy impotent.”
A LEGACY OF RADICALISM: Sadly, tentherism’s assault on democracy is nothing new; indeed, retreat to outlandish constitutional theories is a favorite tactic of the right during times of historic upheaval. Tenther “state sovereignty resolutions” are little more than new names for the “interposition resolutions” enacted by southern states in the immediate wake of Brown v. Board of Education, which claimed that the federal government exceeded its constitutional authority when it extended the Constitution’s promise of “equal protection of the laws” to the American South. Tenther claims that health reform is unconstitutional — because the Constitution does not specifically use the words “health care” — echo the infamous Southern Manifesto’s argument that Brown was wrong because the “Constitution does not mention education.” Much of the intellectual framework for tenther assaults on economic regulation comes from discredited Depression-era Supreme Court decisions that struck down essential provisions of the New Deal on the grounds that they exceeded Congress’ lawful authority. Indeed, conservatives even justified the greatest act of treason in American history, the Civil War, by claiming that that the Constitution permits each state to leave the union at will. Now that America is slowly emerging from its most recent crisis, tenthers once again hope to exploit the nation’s fears to fuel a radical constitutional agenda.
July 11th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
I’m tempted to answer you, but it is apparent from your statements, that you live in a parallel universe where the rules of reason are different. So go ahead and declare “victory” if you’d like. I’ll let the readers decide. I’m not here to convince the likes of you of anything anyway.
July 11th, 2010 at 12:29 pm
For the sake of completeness, here’s a clip of Obama lamenting that the Supreme Court hasn’t gone into the business of redistributing wealth:
I’m going to let my dear readers decide whether I’m crazy for saying that socialism is about wealth redistribution and that’s exactly what those in the Obama Administration are working toward more of, or whether W. W. Wexler is crazy for saying that it’s not the case.
July 11th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Actually, what you’re for is the redistribution of wealth UPWARDS…
let your dear readers look at the facts and they will see that the standard of living in the US has been going down, not up. Wealth has been moving up the food chain, not down it. There are more people living below the poverty line than ever before. Millions of homeowners are under water and in foreclosure. Unemployment is at Depression levels.
So who has been redistributing the nation’s wealth and where has it been going? Has it been evaporating? Have the poor conspired to steal it from the rich but still live as paupers to stay under the radar?
What parallel universe do you live in? In my universe there is no socialist threat from the government, least of all Obama, who is possibly to the right of George W. Bush on almost every policy. His tools Geithner and Summers are toadies with ties that go back a decade with Wall Street insiders. The only people who postulate a socialist plot are people like Glenn Beck who are trying to make money off of it and the people who have been used by him. Which are you? I see you’re trying to make money off of lying to people by hawking Conservativo-wear, so it must be the latter.
I don’t have to “declare victory”. I think I’ll just let you live in a fantasy world where up is down, left is right, and so on. I’m happy to try to help persons such as yourself comprehend the world around you, but some people just can’t be helped.
And you don’t WANT to help us, either, as we face the real possibility of environmental catastrophes, complete economic failure, two useless wars, and the plight of the unemployed who are losing their homes and getting ready to lose their patience. Instead of helping, you want to stand at the sideline like a little puppy yelping “socialist socialist socialist” like some kind of demented mantra which you may or may not believe but if you can get other people to buy your shirt you’ll be happy.
The ship you’re on is the political version of the Titanic. We all know it’s going to slip in, and you want to make damn sure everyone knows it was the socialists who did it.
LOL
July 11th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Obama is a leftist socialist, and what we see today is exactly the resulting outcome of socialism, crony government and lack of prosperity. If not Obama then who? Somehow someday a true socialist is going to lead this nation into utopia? That’s the real laugh (LOL). It never has and never will happen.